I was referring to a different passage - not Matthew 5. I will try to locate it, but it will take time. It was something along the lines of Jesus telling people that you can sin just by thinking about sinning.
Isnt saying one thing and doing another the very definintion of hypocricy? oops beat me to it one rave...damn!!!!! cant wait to see it why
Thomas wasn't a hypocrit. He didn't believe Jesus rose from the dead, and yet he huddled with the other Apostles as a member. Thomas was simply wrong about his belief that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Being wrong about your beliefs doesn't make you a hypocrit - it just makes you wrong. You may feel like a hypocrit, but feeling like a hypocrit doesn't make you a hypocrit.
Perceiving yourself as a hypocrit doesn't mean others must perceive you as such - nor does it necessarily make you a hypocrit.
Regardless, you admit that Jesus said the desire to sin is a sin in itself. Why, then, would you then try to back away from that?
I didn't say the he was a hypoctite. What I said was that if he did not believe he raised from the dead, yet he claimed to believe that he did, he would be a hypocrite.
It depends on what you mean by "desire". If by desire you mean capacity to sin, I don't agree that Jesus ever said this. If by desire you mean "thoughts of sinning", then I agree Jesus did say this. What do you mean by "desire to sin"?
Desire and capacity, as I said are two very different things. Capacity to sin is the ability to sin. Desire to sin is wanting to sin. It's pretty straight forward. They are very simple words, and I am sure you are fully aware of their menings.
"Wanting to sin" can be seen two different ways. Do you mean concious thoughts of performing a particular sin? Or do you mean a heart that would sin given the chance?
as a further note why you said that if god did not exist you would sin more that means that you not only have the capacity but the desire to do so deep within your heart.
I don't see any significance in the difference. We can talk specifically about dishonesty, since that's what this thread is about. If you want to lie, you are sinning, no different than if you do actually lie. Therefore, if you do not lie, simply out of fear of punishment, you are sinning just as much as if you did lie. The only way not lying is not a sin, is if the person is honest by his own volition - simply because it is wrong, not from fear of punishment or retribution. Exactly!
Yes. Everything that science has learned about evolution is rather childish mimbo jumbo. And no. Abortion is completely moral. In fact, given the massively increasing population and the suffering of untold numbers of helpless children, not aborting right away in many cases is horrendously immoral. Suck the blastocyst out, save a child. Literally. Anyone who claims otherwise is a blind fool who is just spouting rhetoric with nary a thought. Note: A lump of cells does not have a "soul" any more than you do. If we accept that, then a blastocyst is no more important than a piece of skin lost in a scrape. Anticipating the next rediculous argument, the answer is NO. You cannot realistically expect the worldwide population at large to have restraint or abstinance or to use birth control effectively. That is a completely unrealistic assessment of human nature.
Why do you think that fear of punishment by a supernatural being is the only reason a person could possibly have for not engaging in antisocial behavior? Especially considering that members of most religious communities have historically never distinguished themselves by their outstanding sense of honor? (Exceptions like the Quakers are so rare as to be downright legendary, and even they have to live down their Richard Nixon.) Why do you not think that humans can be motivated by a desire to contribute to the maintenance and advance of civilization? That is what got us out of the Stone Age after all. We had and still do have the instincts of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, to depend on and care for only a tiny band of intimate acquaintances. We transcended those instincts with reason and learning, being certain that living in harmony and cooperation with others would enrich our own lives as much as theirs. For ten thousand years humans have, on the balance, been learning to treat each other honorably. We now live in nations of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions. Most of us, most of the time, pay for what we pick up in stores and what we eat in restaurants, don't steal each other's possessions, and help each other take care of business for the same reason we started building civilization in the first place: empirical observation. It works! In a sense, building civilization was a scientific experiment. We developed the theory that treating each other with honor would make everyone better off, we tried it, we empirically observed that it worked, and we kept on doing it. Yes it's really difficult to override our instincts 24/7, and almost every one of us with greater or lesser frequency has a lapse and does something uncivilized like lie or cheat. But most of us do it so rarely that it doesn't substantively interfere with the maintenance and advance of civilization. We have to treat at least our closest family and friends honorably, our pack-social instinct makes that behavior automatic. So it comes down to a matter of deciding where to draw the line, who's family and who's not, who's okay to cheat and who's not. At that limit our learning and reasoning kicks in and a ten thousand year history of civilization making life so much more pleasant than nomadic hunting parties struggling for survival wins out. That's why we don't lie, cheat, murder, commit adultery, beat up each other's children, etc., most of the time. Not because we're afraid some fairytale creature that defies science and whom no one has ever seen is going to punish us. Because we like living in this kind of a world!
you would use camo in the face of the enemy or would be predator though, it is survival not lying. peace.
it is scientificaly proven that all human lie at least 7 times a day... If yr best friend just bought a new shirt (he/she totaly likes it and you don't) most people get in conflict with themselves...cause at one hand you don't wanna lie to yr best friend, but at the other hand you don't wanna hurt the person. Same for all the smokers...basicly you lie to yourself to keep the habbit. Liyng has nothing to do with religion...it is a human/psychologicaly habbit
Scientifically proven? I really hope you are joking. No conflict at all. I tell him it's ugly. Why would I like to him, if he wants my honest opinion? What kind of loser would have his feeling hurt if I have different taste than he does? I wouldn't likely be friends with such a shallow and fragile creature. I agree.
Don't ask a question you don't want the answer to. I will not accept accoutability for your fragile, little ego - it's yours. Again... What kind of loser would have his feeling hurt if I have different taste than he does? I wouldn't likely be friends with such a shallow and fragile creature.
